Exodus chapter 23, remember the section chapters 21 to 24 are commonly referred to as the Book of the Covenant. The Ten Commandments are given in chapter 20, that's the moral law of God, and then chapters 21 to 23 are applications of those general principles to concrete situations in civil life. 21.1 says, now these are the judgments which you shall set before them. And this particular section, along with Deuteronomy, contains what we typically refer to as the judicial law. Our confession says concerning the judicial law, To them, Old Covenant Israel, also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution, their general equity only being of moral use." So we've worked our way through chapters 21 and 22. Tonight our focus will be on verses 1 to 9. But I'll read that section, and then we'll look at it in some detail. So beginning in verse 1, you shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute. If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it. You shall not pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. Keep yourself far from a false matter. Do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not justify the wicked. And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous. Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Amen. Well, as we look at this particular section, the emphasis is on justice, justice for all. In other words, there is to be equal protection under the law for all of the people within the covenant community. That even includes strangers, those who have come in, those who are participating in life in the community but do not have access or do not rather have citizenship within the commonwealth. And specifically, when we look at this section, there's three particular subsections. First, the principles of justice for the people in verses 1 to 3. Secondly, an emphasis upon or on decency among the people in verses 4 and 5. And then finally, the warning to the judges of the people in verses 6 to 9. It doesn't say this is specific instruction for the judges, but I'll argue that that's specifically what we find. So in verses 1 to 3, you have instructions for the people in general, verses 4 and 5 certainly speaks to everybody in Israel, kindness, decency, common kindness and decency to one another, and then 6 to 9 deals specifically with judges in Israel, those who make decisions concerning criminal justice. So notice in the first place, with reference to the principles of justice for the people, there's three specifics. You've got the false report in verse 1, the participation in evil in verse 2, and then the problem of partiality in verse 3. And again, all these things we see throughout Scripture. It's not simply confined here to the book of Exodus. When we move through the documents or the pages in the New Testament, you'll see oftentimes the sorts of things that are covered in passages like these are utilized by Paul or Peter that They're brought into service within the context of the church or the church and their conduct with reference to the world outside. So look at, first of all, the false report. Now, verse 1 says, you shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. It sounds like it deals with jurisprudence, but more likely, it's more general in nature. It's not specifically confined to the courtroom, though it would certainly apply in the courtroom. So there is a connection in a passage like this to the third and ninth commandments. In the third commandment we learn, you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. General statement concerning the necessity for honesty and to speak those things that do not impugn upon the good name of our blessed God. And then of course in verse 16, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. So here in 23.1, it's more of a general prohibition. Again, it's not confined to the law court. It's probably referring to the sins of gossip, slandering, backbiting, deceit, whispering, the kinds of things, as I said, are oftentimes found in New Testament vice lists where the Apostle tells us to not engage in such activity. So you shall not circulate a false report. In other words, if you hear information and you don't verify that information and then you spread that information, you are guilty of this particular crime. But if you receive information and you know it to be false information and then you go ahead and propagate that information, that is absolutely wicked. you shall not circulate a false report. Turn to the book of Romans for one sort of specimen sample of a citation of these kinds of sins or these kinds of offense. In Romans 1.29, he is indicating the sins of the Gentiles. These aren't confined, obviously, to Gentiles. Jews would be guilty of this as well. but being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness. They are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful." you see this emphasis on the sins of the tongue. It is absolutely wrong to circulate a false report. That's the nature of the prohibition in this particular section in Exodus chapter 23 at verse 1. And certainly the church would do well to meditate upon these things we as individuals would do well, to meditate upon these things, and to focus on those New Testament passages that call us to guard our tongues when it comes to these issues of gossip, slandering, backbiting, and whispering. And then if you notice this participation in false witness, verse 1b, so after the general prohibition you shall not circulate a false report, it then goes on to say do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Some of the commentators see the hand involvement in terms of swearing, but more likely it means do not participate with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. We see that language and it immediately suggests to us a witness in a law court, but it's more general than that. Same sort of an emphasis in 1A. Don't circulate a false report. Don't gossip. Don't slander. Don't backbite. Don't engage in those sorts of things. The putting of the hand with the wicked means to side with them, to join with them. So obviously the prohibition means don't do that. If they've got big mouths, they engage in gossip, they engage in that sort of a conduct, stay away from them. You're not supposed to hang around with the kinds of people that engage in false report. Don't put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. In other words, don't engage in the things that are here described and don't participate in a friendship or companionship with persons so engaged. And as I said, the types of things condemned in scripture. The scripture condemns backbiting and slander, not just there in Romans, but you see it throughout the book of Proverbs, for instance. The scripture condemns gossiping and tailbearing, Leviticus 19, and then several places in the Proverbs as well. And then the scripture condemns the kinds of things wherein we give or we assault or attack or do damage to a person's reputation. Reputation matters according to the scripture. It's not the case that sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Names and false witness and slander and gossip oftentimes does more damage than physical pain and physical suffering and torment. The Lord Jesus tells us we're not to engage in character assassination when it comes in the Sermon on the Mount. So the law of God speaks not only to the court of law, but also to our general conversation and our conduct in the daily ebb and flow of life. We're not supposed to engage in speech that is calculated to destroy persons' reputations. And that's precisely what's in view here. Circulating a false report, do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. In other words, when somebody tells you something, if you don't have a right to that particular knowledge, if you don't rebuke them, then at least don't spread it further. Don't give it wheels so that it can cover more of Chilliwack or cover more of the lower mainland. Ideally, if somebody comes to us with gossip or tail bearing or some slander or whispering, we would say, you know what, brother? Know what, sister? That's really not for me to know, so I'd rather not hear it. That would probably be the better and more accurate way to deal with such things. But if it is the case that somebody drops that bomb on you, and you have that information, don't compound the particular situation by spreading gossip. That is ungodly behavior. It is condemned in the law of God. Now notice the next prohibition, or the next specific sin, participation in evil. Verse 2, you shall not follow a crowd to do evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. Now, the general application, you shall not follow a crowd to do evil. The crowd is looting Walmart, don't follow them to do evil. If a crowd is robbing a bank because the alarm systems went down, don't follow them, don't participate in that particular act of evil. But as well, when we look at the specifics in terms of the context, it's most likely don't follow a crowd to do evil in terms of the way that you speak, in the way that you misrepresent, in the way that you call into question another person's reputation or you destroy it. Now, notice that this does require courage. Tonight, when we end, I'm going to suggest that we not only need God's grace to be good keepers of the law, but we need courage. What's the typical tendency when it comes to a crowd that's engaged in a particular practice? We call that peer pressure. And when that peer pressure gets somewhat overwhelming, a lot of people capitulate. A lot of people sort of bow down to that. I was just reading. the news recently where the Mormon church has now embraced same-sex marriage. Well, I don't think that comes from any of their documents. I don't think any of their documents condone the absolute perversion of the conjugal relationship. Most likely, they've kowtowed to pressure. They have bowed down to common sort of approach in our own generation. So you shall not follow a crowd to do evil. And then notice what it goes on to say. Nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. Again, either formal or informal. And with reference to this, notice what happens. Nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. When there is peer pressure, and it does exercise a negative influence on us, and we join the ungodly crowd, then that ungodly crowd becomes more formidable, and it's kind of like a snowball rolling down the hill, and it will be able to crush anybody and everybody that gets in there in its particular way. So we don't do ourselves or anybody else any favor when we participate with an ungodly crowd. We make it more difficult for the next person that has to face that particular crowd. And then notice the problem of partiality in verse 3. This is not an isolated incident in our Bibles. You see it throughout the book of Deuteronomy. You see it as well. In the book of Proverbs, in many instances, probably the most famous expression of it in the New Testament is in James chapter 2, verse 1. Don't show partiality. The particular illustration of that is if a man comes dressed in finery into your church, sit up here in the front. We've got a special place for you. Go ahead and put your feet up. We'll get you a beverage. We want you to be comfortable and happy. And the guy comes walking in that's not dressed well, he perhaps smells of the street, and we tell him to sit in the back. That's partiality. Now in the particular context, notice in verse 3, you shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute. Now there's obviously a prohibition against showing partiality to the rich man. In fact, if you look down at verse 6, the instruction to the judges seems to deal with that particular situation. Notice in verse 6, you shall not pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. So perhaps it's more of a keen temptation for a judge to show partiality in favor of a rich man and to discriminate, perhaps, against a poor man, where the common folk probably want to side with the downtrodden, the underdog. Whatever the case may be, the specific sin is to go based on appearance, based on status, based on condition, versus based on fact, based on objectivity, based on the truth. So the problem of partiality toward the rich is a reality, but the problem of partiality with reference to the poor is a reality. We feel sorry for him. He got a bum deal. He's not had a good life. He's been, you know, the downtrodden poor. Yeah, but he robbed a bank. We're not supposed to judge the case based on his situation or what led him to that point. Now, in terms of sentencing, perhaps some of those things might come to play, but in terms of the act of judgment, we're to judge based on the facts, judge based on the data. Robert Alter says, the principle of equality before the law requires the avoidance of any juridical affirmative action. One must give no preferential treatment in court either to the poor man because of his afflictions or to the rich man because of his power. You're not supposed to do that. And so in verse 3 with reference to the general population with the people of Israel, you shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute. I mean, people have a whole lot of reasons why they sin or commit crimes, but we're supposed to judge based on the sin or the crime. Now, if there are those sort of circumstances, yeah, there's a sympathy involved if somebody was, you know, abused and rejected and treated poorly and all that sort of thing. led him to a life of crime, again, perhaps that comes into the sentencing phase, but in terms of the facts of the case, in terms of the investigation, and in terms of the application of the law and justice to a particular situation, this is in the general, or in the specific courtroom, but even in terms of general life, don't show partiality to a poor man in his dispute, don't take the side of the poor man because he's poor, he may be wrong in the dispute, he may be absolutely wrong, And it's required that you point that out if called upon to testify in this particular situation. So as I said, the New Testament classic case is the admonition by James in chapter 2, verse 1. The NIV translates it, not partiality, but favoritism. We're showing favoritism. We're going based on something other than the facts or the data involved in the case. and that may include any kind of an external basis, appearance, rank, race, or social status. See, when we try to manipulate life and we try to give people breaks based on their race or ethnicity or their social or economic status, that's the misapplication. We're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to judge things based on objective data and there is a criteria specified. And then the main principle involved is simply that. The facts do not depend on a person's social status. If we judge that way, if we entertain that type of thinking, it necessarily creates a two-tier system of justice. which is a demoralizing prospect for any body politic. I mean it's not just demoralizing for the people that are always and constantly losing, but it's demoralizing for the stability of the body politic as a whole. There ought not to be, there ought to be equal application under the law for all men. Doesn't matter what their race, what their creed, what their color, what their you know, whatever their situation, we judge them based on the law. That's the emphasis that you find in God's law. Now moving from the principles of justice for the people in verses 1 to 3, notice the emphasis on decency among the people. There's two specific issues raised. The first is a wandering animal, the second is an injured animal. The wandering animal in verse 4 and the injured animal in verse 5. I think Stuart is right when he says these requirements are neither about the legal system per se, nor about oxen or donkeys only. They are expressions of Yahweh's expectations for his people that concentrate on general social attitudes using situations involving lost or stumbling animals as paradigmatic examples. I think the fundamental principle here The underlying point is this, personal differences up to and including animosity, up to and including enmity, personal differences between men is never an excuse to neglect common decency among men. In other words, if there's going to be a dispute, if we're going to have issues, we need to do it in the orbit of Christian ethics. We need to do it in a way that honors God, even though it's a difficult situation. I think one of the best illustrations outside of the wandering animal and the injured animal is divorce. The Bible is anti-divorce. The Bible advocates for a permanent view of marriage, with two exceptions, porneia and desertion. And I would put abuse as a subset of desertion. So when it comes to those particular cases, if somebody has biblical warrant to divorce, my encouragement is to work it out as decently and as properly as you can. Even though you have odds or at odds with one another, there is a dissolution of this marriage coming, go about your business in a manner that shows some degree of mutual respect so that you don't degenerate to the level of beasts. So I think the underlying principle is that personal differences between men is never an excuse to neglect common decency among men. We have a problem in our society with a lack of common decency. Even if we don't agree, even if we don't like each other, there ought to be common decency. We ought not to engage in political violence because people disagree with our positions. If that's the level that we're gonna degenerate to, we're in bad shape as a body politic. Now look at the wandering animal in verse 4. If you meet, notice the language, your enemy's ox. This is somebody you don't like. He's your enemy. I mean, that's strong language, isn't it? Your enemy. Think about my life. Do I have enemies? I mean, there's probably people I'm not thrilled with. I mean, people in my realm, there's certainly some political people I might consider as my enemy. They consider me as their enemy. But really, think about the choice of language here. If you meet your enemy. So you really don't like this fellow. You've got odds with this fellow. You've got some serious issues with this particular man. If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. Your enemy status, your enmity, your animosity, your personal offense at this particular individual does not validate you being an indecent wretch to him. If you see his animal wandering, you help him. Even if he is your enemy, you render that particular aid. Now, you can see why the law is written in this particular way. I mean, if it said, if you meet your friend's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again. Well, of course, I love him. He's my friend. I want to help him. But it's your enemy's ox. If it wasn't your enemy's ox, there probably wouldn't need to be a law. Because if it was your friend's ox, you'd probably be happy to help your friend go after the ox. Or if you saw the friend's ox sort of meandering down the road, you'd throw a noose on him, not a noose, a lasso, lasso. I think you say lasso in Canada. I was brought up with lasso. And then you'd bring it back to your friend. But the point is, is that your personal animosities never validates indecency in the body politic. should be able to disagree with somebody even count somebody as your enemy and nevertheless not wish them the kind of harm that a lost animal would certainly bring upon them. The temptation is obvious and the text specifically addresses that. If you meet your enemy's ox, what would be the natural tendency? Hey, there's my enemy's ox, good for him, I'm glad he's going to leave my enemy, because I don't want my enemy to benefit, I don't want him to prosper. Now the pagans around Israel might have functioned that way, but the covenant community is not supposed to function that way. The covenant community is supposed to love one another. The covenant community is supposed to treat one another with respect. But built into that is the realization that even within the covenant community, where white hot love might not always burn equally for every single person in the body politic, one might even be your enemy. Nevertheless, you have a responsibility to your enemy to grab his ox and to take it back to him. The presence of personal differences, the loser of the animal in this instance is an enemy, does not negate common decency. Now notice the injured animal in verse 5. Flip it over, same sort of a situation, but it's an injury now, but notice the point. if you see the donkey of one who hates you. So in verse 4 it's someone you hate, and in verse 5 it's someone who hates you. The biblical law is comprehensive. The biblical law sort of envisages the possible sort of temptations built into life in community. So if you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping it, you shall surely help him with it. The him there is the guy who hates you. Wouldn't typically be the case that you'd have a burdened donkey sort of wandering around ownerless. The owner is going to be with the donkey that's loaded for bear. and so the point is if you see your neighbor the guy who hates you and you see that his animal is injured under a burden you help him with the animal you help him alleviate the problem you don't say well that guy hates me it's not gonna do any good to repair our relationship so I'm just gonna wander by and I'm gonna probably glance at him a few times just to see how much he's struggling No, you're not supposed to do that. Whatever problems you may have with that person or whatever problems that person may have with you, it does not invalidate your responsibility as a covenant citizen to engage in common decency. We can't save each other. We can't make everybody love us. We can't make ourselves love everybody, especially if they're an enemy, but we can engage in common decency. You see, some of this structurally is so that the body politic doesn't crumble, when we are in what appears at sometimes to be late stages in western civilization, it's just these sorts of things that are vanishing, it's just these sorts of things that are gone, it's the vindictive spirit, it's the vengeful spirit, it's the, oh this guy can't stand me so I'm not going to help him anyway, or I can't stand him so I'm not going to help him anyway. No, biblical law calls you to responsible behavior in spite of whatever differences you may have with that particular person. You do it because it's right. You do it because God commands it. You do it because it's just and it's decent. You shall surely help him with it. Now, if you go over there and he spits in your face and says, I hate you, get away from me, well, then I think that's a Romans 12 situation. As far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. So if you're going to try to render aid to the guy who hates you and he, as I said, he spits on you or attacks you or says, get away from me and my injured donkey. But typically, I would suspect that even somebody who hated me would want me to help pull the burden off the donkey so he could get up. So common decency. That, you know, I guess as you get older perhaps you see it less and you appreciate it more. And this is a passage built into the law code to ensure that that kind of behavior was the standard, was the norm, was that which everybody operated accordingly, according to. Now as you move through the Bible you realize that the law is It doesn't have the power to convert, it doesn't have the power to change the heart, but it certainly does say who will be punished for violating these particular infractions. And then notice, the warning to the judges of the people, excuse me, in verses 6 to 9. The judges are in view in this section. they have the power to pervert judgment in verse 6, they have the power to implement the death penalty in verse 7, they are the ones at risk with reference to bribes in verse 8, and they can oppress the stranger in civil court. So there's that general prohibition in chapter 22, if you go back to verse 21, you shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. That's certainly appropriate for all the persons in the body politic, the general population. But it would certainly be appropriate for a judge, because what might a judge's temptation be? Well, he's not a citizen anyway. I mean, if we have to adjudicate this matter, certainly I'll rule in favor of the Israelite, because this guy is not a full citizen. He's not part of the Commonwealth. Well, that's prohibited. You're not supposed to judge that way. You're not supposed to defer righteous judgment based on the ethnicity or the status of the man standing in your courtroom. So notice, the perversion of justice in verse 6, you shall not pervert the judgment of your poor in his dispute. So again, the contrast with the perversion of justice in favor of the poor in verse 3. I'm not sure that it's always the case that the crowd will favor the underdog and the judge will always favor the rich, but it's certainly probably a potential. but the judge shouldn't as well pervert the judgment of your rich in his dispute either. A man might be rich, he might be arrogant, he might be irritating, he might be sanctimonious, he might be just a guy that everybody can't stand. He still deserves his day in court, and he still deserves the right application of justice. We don't say, well, he got what it was, maybe he didn't commit that crime, but he's so obnoxious he deserves it for something. That's not the way the law courts are supposed to operate, brethren. We may at some fundamental sinful level go, oh yeah, I'm all for that, until it's us on the other side of that bench. Then we want equal justice under the law irrespective of my personality, irrespective of my bank account or lack thereof, irrespective of anything other than the facts of the case. That's the emphasis in this law code. Notice secondly the punishment of the innocent in verse 7. Verse 7, keep yourself far from a false matter. Do not kill the innocent and righteous for I will not justify the wicked. The necessity to avoid a false matter. Now, how do you think you do that as a judge in a courtroom? You emphasize due process. You emphasize the role of witnesses. You emphasize evidence. You emphasize cross-examination. You emphasize all those things that are foundational to Western civilization that we pulled right out of the Bible. We didn't get this law code because somebody, you know, a couple hundred years ago was brilliant. We got this law code that underpins Western civilization from the Bible, from God. Now, people would argue and say, well, that's not true. It is true. That's where the foundation of Western jurisprudence is rooted in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. So the necessity to avoid a false matter. Stewart makes the observation, honesty must prevail throughout the legal system or the system cannot function fairly. I mean, that's a given, right? That's just absolutely, positively true. So what should happen if somebody perjures themselves? They should be punished. There should be harsh sanctions imposed upon anybody that would swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and then lie or perjure themselves on the stand. That is a perversion of justice. And then notice the prohibition relative to the execution of criminal offenders. The middle of verse 7, do not kill the innocent and righteous. That's something a judge would certainly have to know. That's something a judge would certainly have to be down with. Don't kill the innocent and righteous. It was necessary for two or three witnesses in a capital case. Don't be hasty. Don't rush. Don't get to the point. Don't neglect evidence. Don't do any of that. But be solemn and be responsible in the execution of justice, especially in a capital case, because you're not supposed to kill the innocent and righteous. That's a bad application of civil justice. And I think that last part, for I will not justify the wicked, I think it speaks specifically to the middle clause. For the judge who kills the innocent and righteous, God will not justify that wicked judge. In other words, if a judge violates his calling and his prerogative as sort of the mouthpiece of God, then God Most High will not justify that wicked. God Most High will destroy him. Now, obviously, this particular passage presents some degree of challenge in terms of our salvation. I will not justify the wicked. Precisely what God does with us, isn't it? We're wicked. In fact, Paul tells us in Romans 3 and 4, he justifies the ungodly. Proverbs 17, 15 says, He who justifies the wicked and who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. We ought to praise God for the gospel of our salvation. It's not just a thought, it's not just an emotion, it's not just a feeling, but it's a legal transaction. The just one takes the punishment for the unjust, and then we receive, by imputation, the righteousness of our blessed Savior. So this, I will not justify the wicked in the matter of civil jurisprudence, means that the judge who kills an innocent person is not going to be justified, he is going to be brought to judgment, ultimately at the bar of God's judgment. But in terms of soteriology, we ought to praise God for that great exchange, Christ in our stead. And then notice the problem of bribery, verse 8. It says, and you shall take no bribe. Again, this isn't the general population. This is the courtroom. You shall take no bribe. Why? Because a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous. It's obvious, right? You bribe a judge so that he kind of winks or neglects or doesn't look at a particular piece of evidence. The judge makes sure that he bypasses a crucial component in terms of the defense. And then we find a guilty verdict rendered. You shall take no bribe if you're a judge. And this again is not isolated. You've got references in the book of Deuteronomy, three that I counted. You had it practically in 1 Samuel chapter 8. Samuel's sons were the kinds of men that took bribes. You see Samuel mentions himself that he didn't. And then Proverbs 15, 27, 17, 23, 21, 14, 29, 4. All prohibitions against bribery. Now bribery is a horrific thing. It's basically paying for justice. Well, if we're paying for justice, it's injustice. It's not righteous behavior. And I think Stuart makes a good observation. He says that Paul reminds his readers that there is no action, no matter how evil, that people will resist doing if the financial reward is large enough. Where does he remind him of that? First Timothy chapter 6, the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. So if you can pay enough, then you may just fly in terms of this particular case. So bribery is definitely condemned by God if a judge is found out to be taking bribes they ought to be prosecuted very, very harshly, because it is to prostitute, it is to pervert the actual act of justice and its application. And then finally, the oppression of the stranger. I mentioned the prohibition in terms of the general population, 22, 21, you're not supposed to mistreat the alien, you're not supposed to mistreat the stranger, the person that does not have citizen or the rights of citizenship. But with reference to the judge, you shall not oppress a stranger. for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." So it makes the same sort of an appeal. You know what it's like to be a stranger, you knew what it was like to live in Egypt, you knew what it was like to be treated sorely and harshly and in an oppressive manner. Don't do that likewise. See, biblical law is not about let's try to get back at everybody, let's be vindictive, let's try to make everybody feel the same sort of pain that we ourselves felt. You get that when people say, well I had a hard life, they should have a hard life too. Really? Does that balance out the universe? Is that kind of the way we're supposed to approach things? No, the people of God are supposed to live in light of God's law, not in light of our own wretched hearts or our own remaining corruption or what we think might be fitting and appropriate for somebody that we count an enemy or somebody that we know hates us. Now, in conclusion, there's two practical observations. First, the necessity for personal obedience. The necessity for personal obedience. When we read these sort of passages, yeah, we don't really get confronted with the whole, you know, wandering ox or the, you know, bird and donkey kind of a thing, but There is that principle where we do buttheads with people in civil society. Not everybody's our bestest buddy, not everybody's a BFF, so we have friction, we have some tensions with people. How do we treat that? With the decency and the respect that is afforded to them as image bearers of the living and true God. Now, with reference to personal obedience, as I mentioned earlier, we need grace from God on high. Because at times we have remaining corruption, we don't want to do the things that God calls us to do. We need grace so that we'll comply. But courage, the temptation to circulate a false report, demands courage to resist. Especially when everybody else is circulating that false report. Somebody's got to be man enough and courageous enough to say no more. I'm not going to participate in this gossip. I'm not going to spread slander. I'm not going to circulate a false report. As well, the temptation to follow a crowd demands courage to resist. I mean, face it, we don't typically like to go against the flow, do we? We want to be team players, even if the team happens to be, you know, messed up and bent and twisted. We don't want that kind of responsibility, but that's what the Bible calls us to. We need to be courageous men and women to uphold God's standards. The temptation to show partiality demands courage to resist. And I think this is a tough one in our present evil age. I think that, you know, the emphasis today is on, I don't want to get into it too much, but you've got to be very careful when it comes to these sorts of things. We cannot show partiality. You don't show partiality based on ethnicity. It's wrong to, you know, favor white people in the earlier part of the history of our country. But it's wrong to favor black people now. You can't do that. It is wrong. If it's racism then, it's racism now. We don't justify by, you know, practicing it equally. We need to resist that tendency. Wrong is wrong. Right is right. Law is to be applied equally, irrespective of person's colors. I've mentioned to you Isaiah 11. You know, he doesn't judge by the seeing of the eyes. He doesn't judge by the hearing of the ears. That messianic expectation that Messiah would be deaf and blind based on that passage. Well, the passage doesn't mean that he would be deaf and blind. It means he wouldn't go based on appearance. He wouldn't go based on, you know, half a story. He goes based on justice. And then the temptation to disregard common decency demands courage to resist. I may not necessarily like to help the guy that hates me. I might not necessarily like to help the guy that I'm not a big fan of, that's my enemy. But we have to overcome what we necessarily like or don't like. We have to do what's right in spite of the particular conditions that prevail. And then secondly, the stability of the civil order. The stability of the civil order demands individual integrity. Self-government is foundational. Self-government is absolutely crucial. If you don't have people governing themselves, you've got breakdown in society. Have you ever wondered why or how or mused upon or thought about or contemplated the fact that in Galatians chapter 5 a fruit of the Holy Spirit is self-control? A fruit of the Holy Spirit. Well, if I've got the fruit of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit's controlling me. Now, the Spirit works in such a way that you control yourself. There needs to be self-government, family government, church government, societal government, but none of that works if we don't watch our own hearts. As well, the need for individual honesty. If persons are dishonest, it's hard to build a body politic that will survive. I'm not talking about, you know, perfection here. I mean, the law code is not addressing a perfect people. God speaks or gives us laws with reference to things that, you know, are unimaginable to some people. I mean, the previous section or in chapter 22, those three capital offenses. I mean, you know, at least one of them there. Most people don't typically think about, they don't imagine that as a sin of choice. So God gives the law to an imperfect people to regulate their conduct, albeit imperfectly, so that they don't kill each other, so that they don't destroy civilization, and so that they can march forward to some degree in a manner that does reflect God's common grace in this civil order. We need as well righteous judges. And this is a disheartening thing, these rules applicable to judges, you know, with reference to bribery. It may not be a monetary bribe. It may be your job. It may be getting canceled. It may be, you know, if you go against us, then you're going to have a tough time. Judges need to resist that. They should be the most courageous people in the body politic. As well, the need for due process. All of this bespeaks a situation where persons have the right to give their defense, the right to have cross-examination, the right to present their evidence, the right to be heard in civil matters. And then finally, the need for equal protection under the law. Consider the people groups that are addressed in this brief section, chapters 22 and 23. The law of God affords protection to all groups in society. The vulnerable virgin, 22, 16, and 17. The stranger, 22, 21. The widow and orphan, 22, 22, to 24. The poor, 22, 25, to 27. The poor in 23, 3 and 6, neither benefiting him because he is poor or penalizing him because he is poor. The man who is your enemy or who hates you, 23, 4 and 5, and then the stranger in the court. So in all of these things, you see this application, equal application of the law for all persons, irrespective of their status, their economic situation, their ethnicity, or whatever it may be. We need a return to that. And as I've mentioned before, it's not a bad thing to pray for judges, to pray for civil authority, that we would see some of these things returned. and that we could actually function in a way that's honoring to God. Well, let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you that it is comprehensive, that it does speak to issues concerning everyday life and the various things we find ourselves in. We ask God for judges in our land that you would turn their hearts in the direction of righteousness, I pray that you would cause them to take seriously their responsibility. We pray for this commissioner, the person in charge of this hearing with reference to the Emergencies Act. We long to see justice played out there. We long to see vindication. We long to see God glorified in the handing down, not of a verdict, I know that's not what this is, but at least a realization that things were done in a hasty way. As well, God, we pray for those in political authority. We just commit them to you, to the word of your grace. We pray for your restraint to be upon them. And we just pray, God in heaven, that your will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. And as we see increasing abortion rates and euthanasia just about including everybody anymore, it grieves our hearts. And we know, God, that you are holy and righteous. and that the blood of righteous people cry out to you from the grave. So in wrath remember mercy and turn hearts for your glory.